Public engagement for inclusive and sustainable governance of climate interventions

The paper addresses how diverse publics envision their role in governing emerging climate-intervention technologies, specifically carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation modification (SRM). Against a backdrop of growing attention to these technologies and past controversies in science and technology governance, the authors motivate a shift from calls for a participatory or deliberative turn toward understanding concrete, meaningful modes of public engagement. They highlight that prior experiences (e.g., shale gas, CCS) show the consequences of insufficient engagement and that responsible research and innovation frameworks emphasize incorporating public values. The central research questions are: how do publics in varied socio-political contexts want to engage in governing/implementing CDR and SRM, why do they prefer certain forms, and under what conditions is engagement meaningful? The study aims to inform inclusive and sustainable governance by mapping preferences across different technologies and national contexts.

The article synthesizes participation scholarship along several axes. First, typologies by motivation differentiate normative (participation as an end), substantial (improving decisions and outcomes), and instrumental (securing buy-in) rationales. Second, typologies by degree or intensity draw on Arnstein’s Ladder and its adaptations, ranging from information and consultation to collaboration and empowerment, while critiquing assumptions that more participation is always better and the emphasis on invited, top-down spaces. The literature also critiques the deficit model, where publics are framed as lacking knowledge, with examples from GMOs, nuclear, nanotechnology, shale gas, and renewable energy acceptance debates. Recent systemic and relational approaches, such as ecologies of participation, emphasize the embeddedness of engagement in socio-political cultures, the roles of subjects, objects, and models of participation, and the need to attend to bottom-up, citizen-led practices. The review reveals a gap: public preferences for participation are underexplored, especially across diverse contexts and technologies.

The study conducted 44 qualitative focus groups in 22 countries (one rural and one urban per country) encompassing both Global North and Global South, totaling N=323 participants with diverse socio-demographic backgrounds. Recruitment and implementation were conducted with Norstat. The focus groups covered a suite of climate-intervention technologies: biogenic CDR (afforestation/reforestation and restoration of vegetation; soil carbon sequestration and biochar), engineered CDR (direct air capture and carbon storage—DACCS; enhanced weathering—EW; bioenergy with carbon capture and storage—BECCS), and SRM (stratospheric aerosol injection—SAI; marine cloud brightening—MCB; space-based geoengineering—SPACE). A guiding question prompted reflection on public involvement: “How would you want yourself, and the wider public, to be involved in making decisions on these approaches?” Sessions were recorded, transcribed verbatim, translated to English, and analyzed using MAXQDA. Thematic analysis combined deductive coding (informed by participation typologies and systemic approaches) and inductive development of fine-grained themes; engagement-focused categories were cross-tabulated with specific technologies. Two authors coded the data and used negotiated agreement for inter-coder reliability. Ethical approval was granted by Aarhus University (#2021-13); participants provided informed consent. The analysis emphasizes recurring cross-country themes while noting that counts of mentions are indicative and influenced by group dynamics.

• Publics articulated a wide spectrum of engagement roles ranging from passive information recipients to active decision-makers, varying by technology and national context.
• Most frequently mentioned engagement forms (counts of coded segments): Information & education (170); Self- and community engagement (102); Community consultation (85); Disinterest & ambivalence (should not have a say) (70); Direct decision-making (34); Powerlessness (will not have a say) (34); Civil society associations (24); Electing/influencing representatives (20); Protests & social movements (20).
• Technology-specific patterns:
  • Biogenic CDR (afforestation/reforestation/restoration; soil carbon/biochar): Emphasis on bottom-up, practical implementation and “learning by doing” (e.g., tree planting, farming practice changes, volunteering, donations). Publics feel greater agency and concrete contribution potential.
  • Engineered CDR (DACCS, BECCS; to a lesser extent EW): Emphasis on consultations, especially around siting, infrastructure, and risk management. Concerns over costs and taxpayer burden trigger calls for broader consultation.
  • SRM (SAI, MCB, SPACE): Polarized views on public decision authority. Some call for direct decision-making (e.g., referenda) given global stakes; others argue publics should not or will not have a say due to complexity, manipulation risks, or trust in experts/government. Protests and social movements are mentioned predominantly in relation to SRM.
• Modes of engagement mapped across top-down vs. bottom-up and across stages (issue formation, decision-making, implementation). Top-down information is widely desired as a precursor to deeper engagement; bottom-up implementation most salient for biogenic CDR; decision-stage engagement emphasized for SRM.
• Rationales for engagement:
  • For: raise awareness (high, especially for SRM); foster learning by doing and agency (medium; biogenic CDR); ensure affected parties are heard (local/indigenous knowledge for SOILS, DACCS, EW, SAI); avoid conflict/secure buy-in (medium; DACCS, BECCS, SAI); keep big business in line; pressure governments; gain knowledge.
  • Against: approaches are too complex/technical with high stakes and susceptibility to manipulation (high; SRM, SAI, SPACE); other public priorities; trust in government/expertise to decide; public participation may be inefficient, slow, or unworkable (especially for global SRM governance or local engineered CDR siting).
• Conceptions of the public vary: “publics in general” vs. “publics in particular” (e.g., affected communities, indigenous groups, farmers, local experts). Engagement should be tailored accordingly.
• A notable gap exists between desired and expected influence: expressions of powerlessness and distrust toward tokenistic processes appeared in several contexts (e.g., Australia, USA).

Findings indicate that meaningful public engagement for climate-intervention governance must be plural, contextual, and technology-sensitive. Publics commonly request foundational information, which can scaffold more active forms of engagement. Preferences vary by technology: biogenic CDR aligns with hands-on community roles; engineered CDR calls for transparent, locally grounded consultations; SRM provokes polarized views on whether publics should hold direct decision authority given global scope and complexity. These insights directly address the study’s questions on how and why publics want to engage, showing that rationales span normative, instrumental, and substantial reasons, and that engagement preferences are embedded within national political cultures and trust landscapes. The results reinforce systemic, ecology-of-participation perspectives: engagement is not confined to invited procedures but includes claimed spaces (e.g., protests) and indirect channels (NGOs, elections). For governance, this implies designing power-sensitive processes that recognize diverse publics and knowledges, establish trust and procedural legitimacy, and provide forums to engage productively with dissent and value disagreements—especially salient for SRM, where global deliberation spaces free from immediate decision pressures may be constructive.

The study contributes an empirically grounded, cross-country, multi-technology map of public engagement preferences for CDR and SRM. It advances participation scholarship by showing how publics envision sequenced and overlapping engagement modes beyond traditional ladders, embedded in ecologies of participation and shaped by national political cultures. For governance, the authors propose conditions for meaningful engagement: recognize diverse participation ecologies; account for national contexts; tailor practices to specific technologies; adopt power-sensitive approaches; co-produce knowledge while acknowledging prior experiences; build trust and procedural legitimacy; and engage constructively with tensions and disagreement. Future research should deepen analysis of national specificities, explore design of global deliberative spaces for SRM, and develop situated, technology-sensitive engagement practices that integrate local/indigenous knowledge and address power asymmetries.

• The multi-technology, multi-country design limits the depth of analysis for individual technologies and specific national contexts; counts of mentions are indicative and may reflect group dynamics.
• Dataset is not yet publicly available to enable further project analyses; access on reasonable request; full release planned after project conclusion.
• No local researchers were included at this stage; although ethical approval and efforts to include local/regional research in citations are noted.
• Focus on cross-country participatory modes means national specificities are observed but not strongly analyzed here.
• Public engagement preferences and perceptions are self-reported within focus group settings and may be influenced by contemporaneous national events or salience of specific movements.